On the Freedom to Offend an Imaginary God
by Sam Harris posted on September 19, 2012 05:37PM GMT

The latest wave of Muslim hysteria and violence has now spread to over twenty countries. The walls of our embassies and consulates have been breached, their precincts abandoned to triumphant mobs, and many people have been murdered—all in response to an unwatchable Internet video titled “Innocence of Muslims.” Whether over a film, a cartoon, a novel, a beauty pageant, or an inauspiciously named teddy bear, the coming eruption of pious rage is now as predictable as the dawn. This is already an old and boring story about old, boring, and deadly ideas. And I fear it will be with us for the rest of our lives.

Our panic and moral confusion were at first sublimated in attacks upon the hapless Governor Romney. I am no fan of Romney’s, and I would find the prospect of his presidency risible if it were not so depressing, but he did accurately detect the first bleats of fear in the Obama administration’s reaction to this crisis. Romney got the timing of events wrong—confusing, as many did, a statement made by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo for an official government response to the murder of Americans in Libya. But the truth is that the White House struck the same note of apology, disavowing the offending speech while claiming to protect free speech in principle. It may seem a small detail, given the heat of the moment—but so is a quivering lip.

Our government followed the path of appeasement further by attempting to silence the irrepressible crackpot Pastor Terry Jones, who had left off burning copies of the Qur’an just long enough to promote the film. The administration also requested that Google remove “Innocence of Muslims” from its servers. These maneuvers attest to one of two psychological and diplomatic realities: Either our government is unwilling to address the problem at hand, or the problem is so vast and terrifying that we have decided to placate the barbarians at the gate.

The contagion of moral cowardice followed its usual course, wherein liberal journalists and pundits began to reconsider our most basic freedoms in light of the sadomasochistic fury known as “religious sensitivity” among Muslims. Contributors to The New York Times and NPR spoke of the need to find a balance between free speech and freedom of religion—as though the latter could possibly be infringed by a YouTube video. As predictable as Muslim bullying has become, the moral confusion of secular liberals appears to be part of the same clockwork.

Consider what is actually happening: Some percentage of the world’s Muslims—Five percent? Fifteen? Fifty? It’s not yet clear—is demanding that all non-Muslims conform to the strictures of Islamic law. And where they do not immediately resort to violence in their protests, they threaten it. Carrying a sign that reads “Behead Those Who Insult the Prophet” may still count as an example of peaceful protest, but it is also an assurance that infidel blood would be shed if the imbecile holding the placard only had more power. This grotesque promise is, of course, fulfilled in nearly every Muslim society. To make a film like “Innocence of Muslims” anywhere in the Middle East would be as sure a method of suicide as the laws of physics allow.

What exactly was in the film? Who made it? What were their motives? Was Muhammad really depicted? Was that a Qur’an burning, or some other book? Questions of this kind are obscene. Here is where the line must be drawn and defended without apology: We are free to burn the Qur’an or any other book, and to criticize Muhammad or any other human being. Let no one forget it.

At moments like this, we inevitably hear—from people who don’t know what it’s like to believe in paradise—that religion is just a way of channeling popular unrest. The true source of the problem can be found in the history of western aggression in the region. It is our policies, rather than our freedoms, that they hate. I believe that the future of liberalism—and much else—depends on our overcoming this ruinous self-deception. Religion only works as a pretext for political violence because many millions of people actually believe what they say they believe: that imaginary crimes like blasphemy and apostasy are killing offenses.

Most secular liberals think that all religions are the same, and they consider any suggestion to the contrary a sign of bigotry. Somehow, this article of faith survives daily disconfirmation. Our language is largely to blame for this. As I have pointed out on many occasions, “religion” is a term like “sports”: Some sports are peaceful but spectacularly dangerous (“free solo” rock climbing, street luge); some are safer but synonymous with violence (boxing, mixed martial arts); and some entail little more exertion or risk of serious injury than standing in the shower (bowling, badminton). To speak of “sports” as a generic activity makes it impossible to discuss what athletes actually do, or the physical attributes required to do it. What do all sports have in common, apart from breathing? Not much. The term “religion” is scarcely more useful.

Consider Mormonism: Many of my fellow liberals would consider it morally indecent to count Romney’s faith against him. In their view, Mormonism must be just like every other religion. The truth, however, is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has more than its fair share of quirks. For instance, its doctrine was explicitly racist until 1978, at which point God apparently changed his mind about black people (a few years after Archie Bunker did) and recommended that they be granted the full range of sacraments and religious responsibilities. By this time, Romney had been an adult and an exceptionally energetic member of his church for more than a decade.

Unlike the founders of most religions, about whom very little is known, Mormonism is the product of the plagiarisms and confabulations of an obvious con man, Joseph Smith, whose adventures among the credulous were consummated (in every sense) in the full, unsentimental glare of history. Given how much we know about Smith, it is harder to be a Mormon than it is to be a Christian. A firmer embrace of the preposterous is required—and the fact that Romney can manage it says something about him, just as it would if he were a Scientologist proposing to park his E-meter in the Oval Office. The spectrum between rational belief and self-serving delusion has some obvious increments: It is one thing to believe that Jesus existed and was probably a remarkable human being. It is another to accept, as most Christians do, that he was physically resurrected and will return to earth to judge the living and the dead. It is yet another leap of faith too far to imagine, as all good Mormons must, that he will work his cosmic magic from the hallowed ground of Jackson County, Missouri.

That final, provincial detail matters. It makes Mormonism objectively less plausible than run-of-the-mill Christianity—as does the related claim that Jesus visited the “Nephites” in America at some point after his resurrection. The moment one adds seer stones, sacred underpants, the planet Kolob, and a secret handshake required to win admittance into the highest heaven, Mormonism stands revealed for what it is: the religious equivalent of rhythmic gymnastics.

The point, however, is that I can say all these things about Mormonism, and disparage Joseph Smith to my heart’s content, without fearing that I will be murdered for it. Secular liberals ignore this distinction at every opportunity and to everyone’s peril. Take a moment to reflect upon the existence of the musical The Book of Mormon. Now imagine the security precautions that would be required to stage a similar production about Islam. The project is unimaginable—not only in Beirut, Baghdad, or Jerusalem, but in New York City.

The freedom to think out loud on certain topics, without fear of being hounded into hiding or killed, has already been lost. And the only forces on earth that can recover it are strong, secular governments that will face down charges of blasphemy with scorn. No apologies necessary. Muslims must learn that if they make belligerent and fanatical claims upon the tolerance of free societies, they will meet the limits of that tolerance. And Governor Romney, though he is wrong about almost everything under the sun (including, very likely, the sun), is surely right to believe that it is time our government delivered this message without blinking.

Gayle in MD

09-20-2012, 10:49 AM

Where in the world did you find this, Mac?

It's so full of bull, I am shocked, shocked I tell ya, that you posted this B.S.

It's chock full of misstatements.

How's about a link?

Thanks, XOXO

Gayle

cushioncrawler

09-20-2012, 03:26 PM

Sam Harris haz hiz own website, but it might be down just now. I got that/hiz article off the Dawkins website.
But i dont know that Harris haz ever written anything not factual. I certainly agree with hiz fakts and sentiments about Islam. Cults are bad enuff, illegal uzually, but a murderous cult iz worse.
mac.

hondo

09-20-2012, 07:40 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where in the world did you find this, Mac?

It's so full of bull, I am shocked, shocked I tell ya, that you posted this B.S.

It's chock full of misstatements.

How's about a link?

Thanks, XOXO

Gayle </div></div>

Actually, that article was an epiphany to me and I tend to agree with most of it.
I've been thinking along these lines more and more lately.
How we are letting religious nuts blackmail us into being afraid of criticising their religion. They can say what they want about us but we have to be afraid and shut up or they'll kill us.
The early Christians stood up to the Romans even though it meant certain death.
Why should we let terrorists dictate what we say?
We should make it clear that we won't live in fear of a small percentage of nuts and that for every dispicable act they do we will hunt them down like the dogs they are and destroy them.

Gayle in MD

09-21-2012, 12:25 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We should make it clear that we won't live in fear of a small percentage of nuts and that for every dispicable act they do we will hunt them down like the dogs they are and destroy them. </div></div>

I think that is exactly what we are doing.

The article, however, is full of crap, IMO.

I think that we must be mindful that they are a few radicals, out of over a billion Muslims.

What does the author think, for example, about the pedophelia in the Catholic Church, that our country has basically ignored, and the Vatican covered up for decades, who really knows how long?

We have a man running for president, who belongs to a religious cult, which promotes views and opinions which are about as radical as you can find.

As you know, I am against all organized religion for myself, that is, and radically against it inasmuch as it tries to interfere with my personal life, or with my government, or anyone's personal life and freedoms, which, IMO, was never intended by our founders, and is a huge part of all of the strife I see here in our country, and around the world.

Organized religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with "God" IMO. I see it as an organized economic SCAM, whichh pits humans against one another, as much as it teaches any goodness,

As far as horror and fear mongering, blood thirsty killing and trauma to the masses, racism, mysigyny, homophobia, greed and inhumannity???? Much of it is linked to individuals acting in the name of "God", or linked to the emotionally ill, failing to make the decision to THINK.

I see such horrors in all organized religions, not just Islam. I see such faulty thinking among the so called, "conservatives" in the Republican Party, not just Liberals.

This author is not preaching acceptance, or inclusion, he is dividing and condemning, and he is lying in the process.

No one in our government, has apologized to the killers of our people. To suggest otherwise, is a lie.

I agree that we cannot allow ANY religion to dictate, or to progressively deny any of us our right to be autonomous, and have the freedom to think as we think, and make our own choices, about what we think, and how we live our lives, withint the contet of our laws, but I find Christianity far more intrusive in my life here in America, than Islam, because I live here in America. However, I support neither.

As for Mac's post, sounds very radical on many levels, to me, and it is full of distortions. Not a philosophy of knowing your place in the world, nor for looking inside, for the answers.

Above all, I subscribe to a philosophy of "Live and let live" but I think, for example, that the French court should have told Great Briton to stuff it, on the pictures of Kate. Who do they think they are, to go to a foreign country, and dictate which pictures can and can't be taken.

I put the nutjob in Florida in a different category, however, and the film maker who has outraged people on the other side of the world. What was his intention? Surely not High Intention,

My attitude toward radical Islamists, AND Christians, who would seek to do harm to others, or to dictate to others, for any reason, is the same.

As for people like some Muslims, and some Christians, who overstep the rights of others, using "God" As their justification, I see them as confused individuals, who are ill, and who choose fantasy over reality.

I do think the hallmark of being well adjusted, and knowing ones place, is not by being inspired to look around for a stick, to poke in someone's eye, as well.

The idiot in Florida, for example, is evil in his own way, just as the man who made the offensive movie, is a sicko.

Killing however, takes all of these issues to a whole different level, although I hear "Conservatives" pushing for that, as well.

I hear both Christians here, and Muslims there, doing the same exact things.

To worship as one chooses is a right. To act against another person, in the name of "God" is never right, on any level, unless it is an action of high intention, and in a humanitarian effort of empathy, and even that must the result of critical thinking in advance of anything that smacks of dictation.

It is distressing to watch this religious malfunction growing in our own society, right here, where others are using the name of "God" as justification for taking on that role of "Dictating" according to ones personal religious beliefs.

It's everywhere, not just "over there" among Muslims.

G.

cushioncrawler

09-21-2012, 02:21 AM

There iz no such thing az a moderate muslim. If u are moderate then u aint a true muslim.

It would be interesting if muslims etc kompleted a questionnaire where u ticked or not boxes for the 10 paramount cannons of islam, plus the next 10, etc, praps 100 boxes in all.

This would show what u really were.
For example, it appears that 1 in 16 Christians would tick the box for being an atheist, which would sort of negate the need to read question No 2.
But i think that for muslims the ratio of atheists would be 1 in a 1600 praps.

And if i googled the checkpage for cults i would find that mormonizm gets the needed number of ticks to qualify az a cult.
mac.

hondo

09-21-2012, 04:51 AM

Gayle, I see no endorsement of organized religion in that article. He says we have the right to criticise any religion in America , including the nutty origins of Mormonisn and we can do this without fear of being murdered but we are letting a small
faction of one cult, Islam, cause us to live n fear.
And he certainly doesn't call for an all out attack on all Muslims.
I agree with you about organized religions and I think the author of that article would also.
But if you post offensive cartoons of Baptists, for example, we would shake our head and wonder what we did to you.
Post cartoons of Mohammed and a radical faction of them will kill you and your family.
What is not true about this?

Gayle in MD

09-21-2012, 08:59 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle, I see no endorsement of organized religion in that article. He says we have the right to criticise any religion in America , including the nutty origins of Mormonisn and we can do this without fear of being murdered but we are letting a small
faction of one cult, Islam, cause us to live n fear.
And he certainly doesn't call for an all out attack on all Muslims.
I agree with you about organized religions and I think the author of that article would also.
But if you post offensive cartoons of Baptists, for example, we would shake our head and wonder what we did to you.
Post cartoons of Mohammed and a radical faction of them will kill you and your family.
What is not true about this? </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but we are letting a small
faction of one cult, Islam, cause us to live n fear.
</div></div>

Why does he blame that on Liberals, when it was the entire eight year policy used by BUSH et al?

There is a lot in that article that isn't true.

For starters....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Either our government is unwilling to address the problem at hand, or the problem is so vast and terrifying that we have decided to placate the barbarians at the gate.

</div></div>

The author is attacking Liberals, it has been Republicans all along who have placated these despots, training them to kill, selling them weapons and ammo, using them in order to steal their resources. Do you thiink the Arab World slept through all of that?

Are you suggesting that everything the U.S. has done over there over the decades, has been in the interest of those people?

How much money have we sent over there to their dictators, who were oppressing and killing their own people?

There people want what we have, and I'm sick of the lie that they hate us for our freedom. That is a colossal lie! They want the freedom that we have, and WE have played a huge role in operating AGAINST that possibility over the decades of Republican Disaster Capitalism.

Why does the right fail to understand that there is a vast difference between trying to calm the waters, in an emergency, that could potentially cause death and destruction to many innocents, and bowing to radicals. How stunningly ignorant!

These things take time to remove our people from danger, time to investigate, and then follow up by making rational, reasonable decisions that don't make everything worse.

I don't think it has been the Liberals among us who have a history of going off half-cocked.

That would the Republican "Conservatives" and their "Cristian Coalition" who practice Disaster Capitalism, in order to benefit their own prosecution of fear for their own opportunities to exploit, and to prosecute their own hidden agendas.

Not Liberals.

We have a situation where 60% in the Arab World are under 26 years old, and about the same number are uneducated and living in poverty.

After decades of Republican exploitation, propping up and financing authoritarian dictators, it is long past time to kool it, and to subscribe to a far more reasoned contemplation for dealing with what is a growing threat, given there are well over a billion of them, our plan should be thoughtful, and reasoned, which calls for a cooling off period in order to secure our people, and get the facts, before we make decisions.

That is a far different thing from apologizing to them, or bowing down to their bad behavior.

All that we have done publically is re-assert the values that we supposedly subscribe to as Americans.

Does anyone actually believe that that is ALL that this administration is going to do about this given the president's methods for getting our enemies, without launching full out, expensive, irrational wars all over the world?

WTF?

This isn't the Reagan/Bush one era, where all attacks are ignored!

It isn't the Bush two era, where the decision is based on building a hidden, global corporate Fort Knox for cronies!

Islam is not overall a blood thirsty religion, no more so than Cristianity, which is based on the same sort of racist, misogynistic, homophobic, irrationality, IMO.

I simply think the author is making broad statements, irrational statements, and that is the very same thing that those he is criticizing in the Arab World, are doing. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

This is NOT the time for such negligence, IMO. That is what Romney did, immediately, and for his own purposes, and this idiot is defending THAT?!!!!

He's an idiot!

There is a time to sit down and shut up and THINK!

We may not even have all of our people safely secured and away from imminent danger yet!

Peoploe need to embrace simple thinking skills, and the first one he is throwing out the window, is:

The latest wave of Muslim hysteria and violence has now spread to over twenty countries. The walls of our embassies and consulates have been breached, their precincts abandoned to triumphant mobs, and many people have been murdered—all in response to an unwatchable Internet video titled “Innocence of Muslims.”

<span style="color: #990000">Here is the first ignorant lie&gt; It isn't ALL about the film, and saying it is amounts to stunning ignorance! </span>

Whether over a film, a cartoon, a novel, a beauty pageant, or an inauspiciously named teddy bear, the coming eruption of pious rage is now as predictable as the dawn. This is already an old and boring story about old, boring, and deadly ideas. And I fear it will be with us for the rest of our lives.

<span style="color: #990000">YOU FEAR? So now, who is reacting OUT of FEARAND IGNORANCE? </span>

Our panic and moral confusion were at first sublimated in attacks upon the hapless Governor Romney. I am no fan of Romney’s, and I would find the prospect of his presidency risible if it were not so depressing, but he did accurately detect the first bleats of fear in the Obama administration’s reaction to this crisis.

<span style="color: #990000">That is an out and out LIE. Romney wasn't thinking of anything except his own opportunities to exploit this unfortunate disaster for his own means. Romney was criticizing our own brave foreign operatives, THEY WERE THE ONES who put out the effort to calm the porotestors, since they knew their lives were at risk, not "Liberals" Not the Obama Administration, but those who were serving our country, overseas! LIE NUMBER TWO!</span>

Romney got the timing of events wrong—confusing, as many did,

<span style="color: #990000">As many did? What many? Republicans, the right wing, of which YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY a member! YOU ARE exploiting a disaster, the same way that Romney did. Another lie, in that others were more careful, and determined not to make a mistake, namely, President Obama, AND Hillary Clinton! THEY KNEW INSTINCTIVELY THAT TIME IS REQUIRED TO GET TO THE TRUTH ABOUT WHA HAPPENED, UNLIKE ROMNEY, WHO WENT OFF HALF COCKED, JUST A THIS NUTJOB AUTHOR IS DOING RIGHT NOW</span>

a statement made by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo for an official government response to the murder of Americans in Libya.

<span style="color: #990000">ANOTHER LIE.

The statement was made from the Consolate, and the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, not as an official, end all, final comment.

We needed time to make our people safe, and find out if a small terrorist organization was in fact behind the violence, or iF the new leaderS, WERE also involved. Another stupid statement for smeone who doesn't know S**T about what all is going on, and whom else may still be at risk! </span>

But the truth is that the White House struck the same note of apology, disavowing the offending speech while claiming to protect free speech in principle. It may seem a small detail, given the heat of the moment—but so is a quivering lip.

<span style="color: #990000">Here YOU make another hit job at this administration, but YOU leave out the parts where the administration makes it very clear, that violence is not acceptable, and that we will get those responsible! HENCE YOU TELL YET ANOTHER LIE! </span>

Our government followed the path of appeasement further by attempting to silence the irrepressible crackpot Pastor Terry Jones, who had left off burning copies of the Qur’an just long enough to promote the film.

<span style="color: #990000">Is AUTHOR this man so ignorant that he doesn't even know that none other than GATES, went to Florida? Far more was done about Terry Jones, than he is stating, another ignorant LIE. </span>

The administration also requested that Google remove “Innocence of Muslims” from its servers.
<span style="color: #990000"> Is this less important that Great Briton demanding that Kate's nude pictures be removed from public view?

Did we not do that on the internet, with the big black line across her chest? Is this more important? Does it make more sense to allow others of our enemies to spread that film all over the place, and create more danger for those innocents areond thhe world, and for those who are serving us around the world.

ANOTHER IDIOTIC, STUNNINGLY IGNORANT STATEMENT BY THIS IDIOTIC AUTHOR! HE IS EXPLOITING A NATIONAL TRAGEDY, FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES! JUST LIKE ROMENY DID!</span>

These maneuvers attest to one of two psychological and diplomatic realities: Either our government is unwilling to address the problem at hand, or the problem is so vast and terrifying that we have decided to placate the barbarians at the gate.

<span style="color: #990000">THAT IS ANOTHER OUT AND OUT LIE. </span>

The contagion of moral cowardice followed its usual course, wherein liberal journalists and pundits began to reconsider our most basic freedoms in light of the sadomasochistic fury known as “religious sensitivity” among Muslims.

<span style="color: #990000">WHY IS HE BLAMING LIBERALS? HOW MANY TIMES DID BUSH YAP ABOUT ISLAM BEING A PEACEFUL RELIGION. HOW MANY TIMES DID HE ASSURE THE WORLD THAT THE U.S. WAS NOT AT WAR WITH ISLAM? HERE THE AUTHOR MAKES ANOTHER HIT AT LIBERALS, WHEN OUR POLICIES HAVE NOT CHANGED IN PHILOSOPHY FOR DECADES. </span>

Contributors to The New York Times and NPR spoke of the need to find a balance between free speech and freedom of religion

<span style="color: #990000">ONLY TWO LIBERAL LEANING MEDIA NEED TO DO THIS? THIS SHOULDN'T BE A GOAL OF THE WHOLE WORLD? THIS MAN IS OBVIOULSY A NEOCON, OR A NEOCONNED. </span>

—as though the latter could possibly be infringed by a YouTube video. As predictable as Muslim bullying has become, the moral confusion of secular liberals appears to be part of the same clockwork.

<span style="color: #990000">OH SO NOW IT IS SECULARISM THAT IS TO BLAME? NOT DECADES OF NEOCONS FLAMING THE MIDDLE EAST BY LAUNCHING UNWINNABLE WARS, FOR PROFIT, AND PROPPING UP AND FINANCING DEMONIC DICTATORS, GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO RONALD REAGAN? THIS IS SUCH AN OBVIOUS RIGHTWING HIT JOB, AND THAT MAKES THIS IDIOT AS GUILTY AND IRRESPONSIBLE AS ROMNEY! </span>

Consider what is actually happening: Some percentage of the world’s Muslims—Five percent? Fifteen? Fifty? It’s not yet clear—
<span style="color: #990000">LMAO, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT IT IS FAR LESS THAN THAT! ANOTHER LIE. UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS. </span>

is demanding that all non-Muslims conform to the strictures of Islamic law.

<span style="color: #990000">NOT ONLY A LIE, BUT A LAUGHABLE LIE. </span>

And where they do not immediately resort to violence in their protests, they threaten it. Carrying a sign that reads “Behead Those Who Insult the Prophet” may still count as an example of peaceful protest, but it is also an assurance that infidel blood would be shed if the imbecile holding the placard only had more power.

<span style="color: #990000">MUCH LIKE SIGNS I HAVE SEEN IN FRONT OF ABORTION CLINICS AND AT THE GRAVES OF OUR HOMOSEXUAL HEROES, HELD BY 'CHRISTIANS'...ALSO, HE IS GROSSLY EXAGGERATING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AS A PRECENTAGE OF ISLAMISTS, WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THIS OUTRAGE. </span>

This grotesque promise is, of course, fulfilled in nearly every Muslim society.

<span style="color: #990000">NO, IT IS NOT, BUSH'S FRANCHISING OF RADICAL ISLAMISTS IS FAR FROM THAT EFFECTIVE. THE AUTHOR IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH GEOGRAPHY? UNAWARE OF ALL OF THE PEACEFUL ISLAMISTS AROUND THIS WORLD, WHO RESPECT OUR COUNTRY AND WISH TO HAVE OUR OWN FREEDOMS? THIS GUY IS A PIG! </span>

To make a film like “Innocence of Muslims” anywhere in the Middle East would be as sure a method of suicide as the laws of physics allow.

<span style="color: #990000">YET HE MAKSE NO CONTEMPLATION WHATSOEVER ABOUT WHY ANYONE WOULD WANT TO DO SUCH A THING AMONG SOCIETIES WHICH STILL INCLUDE RADICALS WHICH ARE LIGHTYEARS BEHIND OUR OWN SOCIETAL EVOLVEMENT, WHICH, BTW, REPUBLICANS AND THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS WORKING FEVEROUSLY EVEYDAY TO DESTROY. </span>

What exactly was in the film? Who made it? What were their motives? Was Muhammad really depicted? Was that a Qur’an burning, or some other book? Questions of this kind are obscene. Here is where the line must be drawn and defended without apology: We are free to burn the Qur’an or any other book, and to criticize Muhammad or any other human being. Let no one forget it.

<span style="color: #990000">BULLS**T! WE ARE NOT FREE TO YELL FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER, AND WE ARE NOT FREE TO PUT OUR FOREIGN OPERATIVES AT RISK WHEN THEY ARE FACING A POSSIBLE SLAUGHTER! CHANGING THE RADICALISM OF SOME ISLAMISTS, IS NOT ENHANCED BY RECURRING INSULTS TO THEIR RELIGION, IT ONLY MAKES THING WORSE. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE MUST LIVE IN FEAR, AS BUSH WANTED US TO DO, AND LIED TO US MANY TIMES IN ORDER TO PROMOTE IT.

BUT THAT WE DEVELOP REASONABLE POLICIES FOR SUPPORTING BETTER EDUCATION FOR THE OPPRESSED, AND WHERE THEY ARE SERIOUS BOUT RISING OUT OF THEIR THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF OPPRESSION, HELP TO LEAD THEM TO ECONOMIC POLICIES THAT AID THEIR ECONOMIC POSSIBILITIES. OUR MISSION SHOULD BE TO HELP THEM TO RISE OUT OF POVERTY AND OPPRESSION, AND RELIGIOUS IGNORANCE, ALL OF IT CAUSED BY THE SAME KIND ECONOMIC EXPLOITATION OF THE WEALTHY FO THE POOR, OF THE SAME INEQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITIES WHICH REPUBLICANS HAVE CREATED RIGHT HERE IN OUR COUNTRY FOR THE LAST FOUR DECADES, EVER SINCE RONALD REAGAN! THAT IS WHAT LIBERALS ARE TRYING TO END, AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT PIGS LIKE ROMNEY HAVE PROSECUTED AGAINST AMERICAN WORKERS, AND WHAT REPUBLICANS HAVE PROSECUTED AGAINST OUR COUNTRY, INCLUDING THEIR FASCIST SUPREME COURT.</span>

At moments like this, we inevitably hear—from people who don’t know what it’s like to believe in paradise—that religion is just a way of channeling popular unrest.

<span style="color: #990000">YES, SOME OF US ARE REASONABLE. SOME OF US DO NOT BUY INTO FAIRY TALES, DESIGNED TO ASSUAGE OUR FEARS OF DEATH, AND FILL UP THE POCKETS OF CON ARTISTS, POSING AS GODLY, WHILE THEY ARE BEHIND THE SCENES RAPING OUR KIDS, AND HELPING TO PROTECT AND COVER UP THEIR OWN CHILD ABUSERS WHILE SENDING THEM ON TO GREENER PASSAGES! </span>

The true source of the problem can be found in the history of western aggression in the region. It is our policies, rather than our freedoms, that they hate.

<span style="color: #990000">AT LAST, ONE TRUE STATEMENT, </span>
I believe that the future of liberalism—and much else—depends on our overcoming this ruinous self-deception.

<span style="color: #990000">oH, HERE WE GO AGAIN. IT'S ALL ABOUT LIBBERALISM. ANYONE WHO CAN'T SEE THROUGH THIS OBVIOUS HIT JOBS ISN'T LOOKING VERY HAHRD. OUR OFFENSIVE POLICIES WERE IMPLEMENTED BY REPUBLICANS, NOT BY LIBERALS. THI IS NOTHIG BUT ANOTHER RW EFFORT TO REVERSE HISTORY, FOR POLITIAL PURPOSES.</span>

'Religion only works as a pretext for political violence because many millions of people actually believe what they say they believe: that imaginary crimes like blasphemy and apostasy are killing offenses.

<span style="color: #990000">TELL IT TO THE EVANGELICALS RIGHT HERE WHO KILL DOCTORS, BLOW UP ABORTION CLINICS, GO IN SECRET TO THEIR HOMOSEXUAL PROSTITUTES, AND DEMONSTRATE AGAINST OUR FALLEN HEROES. </span>

Most secular liberals think that all religions are the same, and they consider any suggestion to the contrary a sign of bigotry.

<span style="color: #990000">MOST SECULAR LIBERALS ARE CHRISTIANS. THIS MAN IS SO FULL OF IT, IT HURTS. </span>

Somehow, this article of faith survives daily disconfirmation. Our language is largely to blame for this. As I have pointed out on many occasions, “religion” is a term like “sports”: Some sports are peaceful but spectacularly dangerous (“free solo” rock climbing, street luge); some are safer but synonymous with violence (boxing, mixed martial arts); and some entail little more exertion or risk of serious injury than standing in the shower (bowling, badminton). To speak of “sports” as a generic activity makes it impossible to discuss what athletes actually do, or the physical attributes required to do it. What do all sports have in common, apart from breathing? Not much. The term “religion” is scarcely more useful.

<span style="color: #990000">LAMO! SHOW ME ONE RELIGION THAT DOESN'T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST WOMEN. SHOW ME ONE ORGANIZED RELIGION THAT DOESN'T DEMONZIE HOMOSEXUALS. SHOW ME ONE RELIGION THAT DOESN'T DENY SCIENCE! SHOW ME ONE RELIGION WHERE THE TOP OF THE PIOLE, DOESN'T LIVE LIKE KINGS! MORE FROM THIS CONARTIST IS HARDLY PALATABLE! </span>

Consider Mormonism: Many of my fellow liberals would consider it morally indecent to count Romney’s faith against him.
<span style="color: #990000"> AGAIN, HE IS REWRITING HISTORY. IT IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WHO HAVE CHOSEN A MORMON TO RUN THIS COUNTRY, NOT LIBERALS.</span>

In their view, Mormonism must be just like every other religion. The truth, however, is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has more than its fair share of quirks.

<span style="color: #990000">YES, JUST LIKE EVERY SINGLE OTHER RELIGION I KNOW OF! </span>

For instance, its doctrine was explicitly racist until 1978, at which point God apparently changed his mind about black people (a few years after Archie Bunker did) and recommended that they be granted the full range of sacraments and religious responsibilities. By this time, Romney had been an adult and an exceptionally energetic member of his church for more than a decade.

<span style="color: #990000">YES AND SHOW ME AN ORGANIZED RELIGION THAT DOES NOT TELL THE RACIST STORY OF CAIN AND ABEL! THAT DOES NOT BLAME EVE FOR LISTENING TO THE SERPENT! THAT DOES NOT PROMOTE THE IDEA THAT WOMEN ARE BENEATH MEN! THAT DOES NOT HAVE ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERS WHO SPEND MORE TIME RAISING MONEY AND SUCKING UP TO THE RICH IN THEIR CONGREGATIONS, AND COUNTING MONEY AND STUFFING THEIR FACES THAN DOING GOOD IN THE WORLD.</span>

Unlike the founders of most religions, about whom very little is known, Mormonism is the product of the plagiarisms and confabulations of an obvious con man, Joseph Smith, whose adventures among the credulous were consummated (in every sense) in the full, unsentimental glare of history. Given how much we know about Smith, it is harder to be a Mormon than it is to be a Christian. A firmer embrace of the preposterous is required—and the fact that Romney can manage it says something about him, just as it would if he were a Scientologist proposing to park his E-meter in the Oval Office. The spectrum between rational belief and self-serving delusion has some obvious increments: It is one thing to believe that Jesus existed and was probably a remarkable human being. It is another to accept, as most Christians do, that he was physically resurrected and will return to earth to judge the living and the dead. It is yet another leap of faith too far to imagine, as all good Mormons must, that he will work his cosmic magic from the hallowed ground of Jackson County, Missouri.

<span style="color: #990000">BWA HA HA HA! YES, IT IS FAR EASIER TO BELIEVE THAT YOU SO CALLED "CHRISTIANS" ALL ALL GOING TO FLY UP TO HEAVEN AT THE END TIMES. FAR MORE REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT ONE MAN CREATED THE UNIVERSE WHEN WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE UNIVERSE IS. FAR EASIER TO BELIEVE THAT DRUNKEN GOSSIPS WHO9 WROTE IN BOOKS THOUSANDS OR YEARS AGO WERE ALL TELLING THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH ABOUTH EVERYYTHING, ONLY THAT WAS GOING ON FOR THOUSAND OF YEARS BC, THE SAME STORY, VIRGIN BIRTH AND RESURRECTION INCLUDED.

ALL ORGANIZED RELIGION IS BASED ON SHERR FANTASY. I HAVE YET TO STUDY A SINGLE ONE WHICH ACTUALLY SUBSCRIBES TO THE SPIRITUAL WORDS OF CHRIST, OTHER THAN LIBERALISM, AND BUDDHISM, NEITHER OF WHICH ARE RELIGIONS.</span>

That final, provincial detail matters. It makes Mormonism objectively less plausible than run-of-the-mill Christianity—as does the related claim that Jesus visited the “Nephites” in America at some point after his resurrection. The moment one adds seer stones, sacred underpants, the planet Kolob, and a secret handshake required to win admittance into the highest heaven, Mormonism stands revealed for what it is: the religious equivalent of rhythmic gymnastics.

<span style="color: #990000">BWA HA HA HA, BUT MEN LIVING IN WHALES, AND WALKING ON WATER, AND INSTALLING TOW OF EVER ANIMAL ON A WOODEN BOAT, ALL OF THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE! BWA HA HA HA...TELL ME ANOTHER ONE, SHERLOCK! </span>

The point, however, is that I can say all these things about Mormonism, and disparage Joseph Smith to my heart’s content, without fearing that I will be murdered for it.

<span style="color: #990000">LOL, I WOULDN'T COUNT ON IT, THE ELECTION ISN'T OVER YET, AND MORMONS HAVE KILLED ONE ANOTHER PRETTY RECENTLY OVER CONFLICTING VIEWS. JUST AS CHRISTIANS HAVE. REPUBLICANS ARE KILLING PEOPLE ALL OVER THE EARTH AS WE WRITE WITH THEIR POLLUTING CHEMICALS AND THEIR PROTECTION OF THOSE WHO ARE KILLING THE EARTH. </span>

Secular liberals ignore this distinction at every opportunity and to everyone’s peril. Take a moment to reflect upon the existence of the musical The Book of Mormon. Now imagine the security precautions that would be required to stage a similar production about Islam. The project is unimaginable—not only in Beirut, Baghdad, or Jerusalem, but in New York City.

<span style="color: #990000">IF THIS MAN IS TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT ONLY THE MUSLIM RELIGION HAS KILLED OVER IDEOLOGY, HE IS LYING. HE MUST NOT READ THE NEWSPAPERS. HE MUST NOE READ HISTORY BOOKS. HE MUST NOT UNDERSTAND THE DAMAGES OF COLONIALISM PROSECUTED ALL OVER THIS WORLD BY 'CHRISTIANS' WHO KILLED AND MAIMED FOR WEALTH FOR CENTURIES. THIS MAN IS IGNORANT, TO SAY THE VERY, VERY LEAST. AND YES, HE IS THE ONE WHO IS SPREADING MORE HATE, AS ALL RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATINS DO, AND HAVE ALWAYS DONE.</span>

The freedom to think out loud on certain topics, without fear of being hounded into hiding or killed, has already been lost.

<span style="color: #990000">YES, THANKS TO THE ORGANIZED RELIGIOUS INTERFERENCES IN OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES IN THIS COUNTRY TOTALLY PROMOTED BY RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, NOT LIBERALS. </span>
And the only forces on earth that can recover it are strong, secular governments that will face down charges of blasphemy with scorn. No apologies necessary.

<span style="color: #990000">AGAIN, TELL IT TO THE REPUBLICAN CHRISTIAN COALITION, THE EVANGELICALS, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS WHICH HAVE PUSHED THEIR RELIGION INTO OUR SCHOOLS, INTO OUR POLITICS AND INTO OUR VAGINAS. </span>

Muslims must learn that if they make belligerent and fanatical claims upon the tolerance of free societies, they will meet the limits of that tolerance. And Governor Romney, though he is wrong about almost everything under the sun (including, very likely, the sun), is surely right to believe that it is time our government delivered this message without blinking. </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">TOLD LIKE A TRUE IGNORANT FOLLOWER OF THE ROMNEY NEOONNED SHEEP.

DON'T WORRY, WE ALREADY KNOW THAT ROMNEY WOULDN'T BLINK BEFORE HE BLEW UP THE WORLD, AND THAT HE COULD JUSTIFY IT THROUGH HIS OWN RELIGIOUS CULT, MUCH LIKE ALL OF THE REST OF THE RELIGIOUS CULTS, WHICH ALL RELIGIONS ARE.

STUNNING DISHONESTY, AND STUNNING IGNORANCE, WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT IS ALWAYS UNCOVERED THROUGH THE WORDS OF ANY AND ALL ORGANIZED RELIGIONS, AND YOURS IS NO BETTER THAN THE MUSLIMS, AND JUST AS DANGEROUS.

G. </span>

cushioncrawler

09-21-2012, 04:02 PM

Gayle.
Sam Harris iz an atheist and well knows the evils of religions. And i suspekt that he iz a liberal and votes dems.

Muslims are the worst. Islam iz the worst. What % of muslims would tick the box for killing infidels -- probly a lot.
And by my definition 100%, koz if u dont u aint.

In a sense the main difference tween islam and christianity iz the difference tween muslims and christians. Koz both are in theory murderous cults, and one iz in praktis.

And i am thinking that the main diff tween christians and muslims iz priests. Priests are the trouble, and if there iz ever going to be a solution it will hinge on priests.

Admittedly arabs hav been stuffed by theusofa and all for a long time and hav strong valid reasons to hate. Fuelled nowadays by the palestinian injustice.

But i say that there will never be a solution to the islam problem. It will get worse and worse, koz the priests will get worse and worse. And there aint never gonna be any solution. If the problem woz radicals, then there would be a solution. But it aint, and there iznt.

And some countrys are going down. They are now beyond tipping point. The wasps are happyly breeding in the nest.
England -- going down.
Holland -- going down.
Germany -- going down.
France -- later, but going down anyhow.
mac.

What duzz going down meen. What would wasps do once they rule the whole nest.
Well, real wasps need bees. Muslims dont need infidels.

Soflasnapper

09-21-2012, 05:55 PM

It might be defensible to take such a naive view of the current goings on with Islam as this man apparently does, except as you mention, we've been using radical Islam as a tool of western power for the past several generations.

We've stoked it with the provision of millions of dollars of school books and coloring books, authored here, printed here, distributed by us over there, educating the young Moslems as to the Wahabi cult version of radical Islam. We flooded these into Afghanistan, for example, where the Taliban still use them to create hate-filled fanatics among their children.

Unless and until the very creation of the Wahabist cult, its use and sustenance, is examined, and the west's guilt in it acknowledged and these uses brought to an end, it's a kind of Catch-22 with regard to the Islamic world.

What would they REALLY do on their own, compared to what they do now with our provocation and as our geopolitical puppets? It is not as easy a question to answer as this man would imply.

cushioncrawler

09-21-2012, 07:07 PM

Wahhabism in the United StatesA study conducted by the NGO Freedom House found Wahhabi publications in mosques in the United States. These publications included statements that Muslims should not only "always oppose" infidels "in every way", but "hate them for their religion … for Allah's sake", that democracy "is responsible for all the horrible wars of the 20th century", and that Shia and certain Sunni Muslims were infidels.[55][56]

The Saudi government issued a response to this report, stating: "[It has] worked diligently during the last five years to overhaul its education system [but] [o]verhauling an educational system is a massive undertaking".

A review of the study by Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) complained the study cited documents from only a few mosques, arguing most mosques in the U.S. are not under Wahhabi influence.[57] ISPU comments on the study were not entirely negative however, and concluded:

American-Muslim leaders must thoroughly scrutinize this study. Despite its limitations, the study highlights an ugly undercurrent in modern Islamic discourse that American-Muslims must openly confront. However, in the vigor to expose strains of extremism, we must not forget that open discussion is the best tool to debunk the extremist literature rather than a suppression of First Amendment rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.[57]
[edit] Militant and political IslamWhat connection, if any, there is between Wahhabism and Jihadi Salafis is disputed. Natana De Long-Bas, senior research assistant at the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, argues:

The militant Islam of Osama bin Laden did not have its origins in the teachings of Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab and was not representative of Wahhabi Islam as it is practiced in contemporary Saudi Arabia, yet for the media it came to define Wahhabi Islam during the later years of bin Laden's lifetime. However "unrepresentative" bin Laden's global jihad was of Islam in general and Wahhabi Islam in particular, its prominence in headline news took Wahhabi Islam across the spectrum from revival and reform to global jihad.[58]
Noah Feldman distinguishes between what he calls the "deeply conservative" Wahhabis and what he calls the "followers of political Islam in the 1980s and 1990s," such as Egyptian Islamic Jihad and later Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. While Saudi Wahhabis were "the largest funders of local Muslim Brotherhood chapters and other hard-line Islamists" during this time, they opposed jihadi resistance to Muslim governments and assassination of Muslim leaders because of their belief that "the decision to wage jihad lay with the ruler, not the individual believer".[59]

Karen Armstrong states that Osama bin Laden, like most extremists, followed the ideology of Sayyid Qutb, not "Wahhabism".[60]

cushioncrawler

09-21-2012, 07:11 PM

Born in theusa.
Reads the koran with a yanky drawl.
Puts on a vestbomb, made in theusofa.
Blows up the prez of theusofa.